Dumbing down speech

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I'm glad everyone picked up this ball and ran with it. Enjoyable as usual reading through the responses. Thank you all for your perspective.

Usually I am the 'just be yourself' type. My problem here is that I am in a management situation. As a new manager, how my employees perceive me is an issue and can adversely affect the team dynamic if I get it wrong. I learned long ago, the most stressful part of any job I've ever held has been the people. I can handle any challenge, any job, any deadline - I have strong EF skills - a natural born systematizer. But I just don't know how to make that 'good first impression'. The last thing I need is my team thinking I'm a snob right out of the gate.

I've taught myself some somewhat decent 'translation' skills over the years - I can read people well enough to avoid major faux pas - usually - but this little, nitty gritty detail stuff is still out of my reach.

Let's just be clear on more time - I dislike the phrase 'dumbing down'. Intensely. That phrase has existed long before my time and has been used, repeatedly, by my NT peers. I think this 'dumbing down' phenomenon is largely cultural here in the US. Education and intelligence seems to be more highly valued in other regions of the world. Yes, our education system in the US is extremely broken but, even then, there is a pervasive lack of intellectual curiosity that compounds that problem. Being educated can be seen as a threat to the 'general public'. I am not calling out NT's for being 'dumb' because it simply isn't true. Dumb people come in all shapes, sizes and neurologies and being 'dumb' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with IQ. Not having an expanded vocabulary does not make one dumb, it simply makes them under educated.

TheHouseholdCat - I agree with you. Women are expected to tailor their speech and many women do this subconsciously - damn their superior social skills! My mother used to be a master at this. She was incredibly intelligent but she always seemed to know exactly how to talk to people on their own level. I wish some of that rubbed off. Men often seem intimidated by a women who seems intelligent. But women seem to reserve special disdain for other women who just don't have that magic sixth sense for speaking to people on their own level. THAT is what I'm combating. Women's intuition ferreting out my weaknesses in social skills despite my best acting performance. I get men. Women, no clue.

abyssquick - I wish I could go foraging with you!! ! The one plant aspect I haven't been able to indulge has been wild foods. I only have some paltry book learned knowledge here. I've been dying to find a mycologist and go on a hunt! Language and absolutely correct identification are all important in what you do - unfortunately, I'm more on the profit driven side of horticulture. "Dumbing down' is a way of life. It's foal-ee-age... not foil-age...

words are merely vehicles that transport concepts to other minds.

i have no idea what the vocabulary of people that i speak to consists of, so i try to use the simplest words to convey my message.

a concept that is rich in imagination is not enhanced by the use of words understood by few people, and not diminished by the use of words that all can understand.

a concept is a concept and the method of it's delivery does not change the concept in any way.

many people like to sound "erudite" by their use of such words as "erudite".

a stupid idea can be conveyed with a set of words understood only by the most learned, and a brilliant idea can be conveyed with words that even the entirely uneducated can understand.

If you had read my post, you would have seen that I said that I am overly formal and overly articulate in written language. I rarely use the word "erudite" in general conversation, but that WAS the first word that my mind thought of while composing that sentence. I just choose not to alter my words in writing, especially on an Asperger's forum where pedantic speech should be accepted most of all. What's the point of knowing advanced vocabulary and loving words if we never use them? I am not an arrogant person whatsoever, and being misrepresented as such while using my naturally rich vocabulary just proves the whole point of this thread.

I've been forgaing actively since my teens - it begins of course with wild berries, and moves onto roots, shoots, leaves, and fungi.

Springtime is when I gather so many of the edible greens. This year I'm in a new area, and I've staked out about 6 huge stands of ostrich fern (identified from last year's dead parts) - I'll probably freeze several gallon-bags worth. Soon the linden (basswood) with break buds - if you know that tree well, those are an excellent and abundant mild/sweet salad green. Locust flowers are also delicious.

I also make note of hen-of-the-woods (grifola frondosa) mushroms where I find them or their past remains, so I can collect the mushroom fruit-bodies in September. I collect maybe a dozen species of edible fungi, and make a point to identify/try a new species every season. I've got a map of Eastern Ma where tacked the species/date for future collecting.

It's a great way to cut down on the cost of one's food, whilst simultaneously becoming educated, and eating healthfully! There are lots of books - my favorites are those of Samuel Thayer "Nature's Garden" and "Forager's Harvest" -- He has continued in the same spirit as Euell Gibbons, confirming and sometimes even correcting Euell's teachings. Gibbons' 3 main books are a standard in the subject - and John Kallas "Edible Wild Plants: Wild Foods From Dirt To Plate" is also top-notch work.

The best guide for fungi wild identification purposes (and I have 7 re: the Northeast US specifically) is Roger Phillips "Mushrooms and Other Fungi of North America" - it has full color pictures of all the mushrooms as collected by the author in the wild. The most useful book one could hope for.

Last edited by abyssquick on 22 Mar 2012, 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's because our choice of language, and hence any of the rebellion relative to language is 'allelomimetic'

Who said it being a generalization is what makes it false? I didn't.

I'm saying it's false, because it IS. And not because of "minor exceptions."

Because of big huge glaringly obvious and very numerous exceptions. It is not a "fact" that "most people on earth are below average intelligence." "Average" in this context, to be treated as a mathematical concept ignores the human social factors, which cannot be mathematically expressed. If one approaches society in general with the presumption that most are "stupid" it is bound to affect one's relationships with others negatively.

If that's what you want, so be it. That's what you'll get. Negative repercussions from subjectively derived negative preconceptions.

I stand by my assessment. Calling any group of people "stupid" is itself stupid, because it is resorting to grade school style name calling. If one is going to use name calling like that, then one ought to be able to handle it in return. If one doesn't like being called stupid, one shouldn't call anyone else stupid.

That's a basic social rule even an Aspie can understand. It's not a mathematical construct. It's just common sense.

i did not read your post.
i just responded to the topic title.
___________
but i read your inclusion of your earlier post in your reply.... so

well how about that?

what sentence? i still have not read your post and i know not what sentence you are agonizing over.


maybe i should read whatever you posted before before answering this, but i have other things to do.

what is the point of using non conventional words (whoever coined them) that you use that are not in any way more descriptive than the basic subset of words available to describe the same thing you mean to say in the first place?

"erudite" is just another word for "learned", and "esoteric" is just another word for "specialized"
everyone knows what "learned" means, and everyone knows what "specialized" means, but less people know what "erudite" and "esoteric" mean, so why use those words? to be snobbish or exclusive?




you would have better served your self by ignoring my post, because now it seems to me that you are arrogant enough to think that my post was in any way referring to you.
i did not read your post and i said all i said in isolation. i was responding to the title of the thread and not to you. (maybe you started this thread (i do not know until i post my reply and then read who started the thread)(in which case i understand why you are yodeling your displeasure)).

people who use words that are chosen for their "prestige" over words that are just as adequate but "common" are conversational snobs.

they naturally have a smaller audience, and they may feel ripped off that their eloquence is ignored, but who cares about how something is said... as long as it gets the message successfully across.

please do not respond because i am not displaceable in my resolve and it will result in more angst for you and more obligatory chores for me.

So would I, but that isn't necessarily how everyone handles it. "Oooh, BIG WORDS," is admittedly a rude way to say (more politely), "Excuse me, what does that mean? I've never heard that word before [in this context]."

Responses like that in the image (though the image is meant to be humorous, and probably is in the context of the show it came from (I love both the actors by the way, and probably would laugh hysterically at the skit)), are meant for comedic purposes, and not meant as lessons for how to handle similar situations in real life.

If that's how one acts in real life, it certainly isn't going to win one any friends.

Many people do however, use physical cues, like confused looks, that are perfectly acceptable forms of communicating the same thing. We might prefer blunt questions, but not everybody uses them.

Does anyone really believe that either of these guys got where they are today by acting like that off stage? I highly doubt it. Anyone who achieves that level of success has to learn some form of diplomatic behaviors, and learn when to turn them on and shut them off. It's said that Steve Jobs could be very abrasive, and certain people never learned to really like him at all. It is true that even highly successful people can be total jerks sometimes, but if they were like that all the time, I'm sure they would never have gotten where they are.

People will not collaborate for any productive length of time with people who consistently make them feel as if they are subordinate and stupid.

What could possibly be wrong with simply noticing that somebody isn't getting what you're saying, and asking, "Do you not understand what I meant?"

Just because somebody doesn't understand you does not mean they are stupid.

The fact that you responded only two posts after mine and put the word erudite, which only I had used, in sarcastic quotes makes it highly suspect that your snide comment was directed towards me. And if your comment was not directed towards me, perhaps I misinterpreted your message due to the fact that I have Asperger's, not because I'm arrogant?

this was a good educational thread before all the bickering began

stop ya headbutting ya horny beasts

For all of my adult life, I have been around people who use big words all the time, much more so than I do. I almost never use big words in speaking. I sometimes use big words in writing. Big words are very vague to me, so I like to use strings of small words to talk about things. I also would rather hear a string of small words from someone else to tell me something. The strings of small words match my thinking bester, so I understand the idears bester and faster than if someone used big words to talk about the same thing.

I find it quite interesting you choose to bring up Steve Jobs when your whole point is that you don't get successful by not being nice. If someone were to tell Steve Jobs (while he was still alive, obviously) to stop using big words I'm sure, knowing the type of person he was, he would not be polite at all. I even have a friend who knew Jobs and he told me simply: "Despite how he is on stage [in Apple keynotes and WWDC] he isn't a nice person." If you're talking about success here, then being nice doesn't make you successful, being logical and calculating makes you successful, generally speaking.

Now if your boss tells you to stop using "big words" then perhaps you have a point, because not pointing out what an idiot s/he is would be beneficial to your career, but even then you'd probably laugh about it behind their back, and certainly if you are the boss - as Steve Jobs was - then you no longer need to pretend to be nice to stupid people. Hell, Jobs wasn't even nice to people when he wasn't the boss.

I mean look at Bill Gates too. Did he get to to where he is by being all wishy-washy or was he a savvy and harsh businessman with somewhat questionable business ethics who drove all competition out the market by either forcing them to sell up or copying their products? Think about it.

That said, Fry and Laurie are in the entertainment biz, which means they likely got to where they are by being charismatic and funny, which they are of course. But that doesn't necessarily mean "being nice to idiots" either. Anyone who's read Fry's writing or seen enough of his sketches and other work will tell you that when he disagrees with something he will say so and will spare the niceties. A Bit of Fry and Laurie is actually a good example of this because a lot of the sketches are used as vehicles for making points about societal and political issues.

Just two examples I remember off the top of my head:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T2zUEiVQU4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7gP1xgRDJ4[/youtube]

I never dumb down my vocabulary for others. I don't see why I should, they are the ones who should better their understanding and therefore be able to fathom what I am talking about. The only problem is when you get anti-intellectual individuals who openly bash you simply for being more intelligent and using more advanced language than them. Also, people seem to look at me funny for using metaphorical constructs to explain a concept; how screwed up is that?!

But then what do you do when you need to communicate an idea to people who initially don't understand you? Do you simply give up and accept that they don't understand you? That would be fine if it's not very important for them to understand but situations must come up where you need them to understand.

I am learning how important it is to dumb things down.

Partly because it makes it easier for others to understand me if I do dumb it down, particularly clients. (A practical consideration)

Secondly because some people, clients, colleagues, business associates etc, are quite intimidated by intellect, which is tedious

You're right. Jobs probably was not the greatest example to pick. I did say he could be abrasive. And yes, many people who knew him freely admit he wasn't very likable.

My point is that regardless of who he or anyone else dealt with during their climb to success, I don't believe it was abrasiveness, or calling others "stupid" that got them there. I'm sure that all of them chose to turn that side of themselves off if necessary, depending on the company of people they were with at the time. If they're with someone they NEED something from, and want it bad enough, I'm certain they aren't going to be an as*hole to them, unless they know the person is one who has the ability to see through that and find some value in the relationship that benefits them. If they are with a person who may not be able to get past it, and that person has something they want, they're NOT likely to act like as*holes and risk losing an opportunity.

Nobody gets to that level of success without understanding when they can get away with being a dick, and when they can't. In many cases, the ability is driven by a self centered motivation. In others, it's driven by a genuine love for people, and that translates to likability.

How a person measures success also has a lot to do with it. If it's in money and/or recognition, and nothing else, one can get away with a lot more of what many would call unacceptable behaviors, as long as one learns when to turn them off and on at the right times, with the right people. Most people I know call that manipulative.

Those who measure it in happiness and good positive relationships, learn not to be manipulative, and don't resort to generalizing entire groups of people as "stupid." (I'm referring to the point in this thread about calling NT's in general stupid at this point). I find that stupid in itself since it prejudges an entire group of people based solely on the fact that they don't have Autism. I find that pretty stupid whether one measures success with money, power and influence, or measures it in happiness and friendships.

Why?

Because by generalizing an entire group as stupid, you've just insulted the entire group, many of whom you could be dead wrong about, and all of whom will now most likely want nothing to do with you if they know what you're attitude is toward them. Some of them could be useful in your quest for success, no matter how you define it.

As for the comedy bits, I found them pretty funny, but what I'm seeing there are satires on specific attitudes and policies, not choosing an entire group of people and branding them as idiots or stupid. Unless you want to claim "politicians" but that to me is a completely different story. Some groups are acceptable to satire. Groups comprised entirely of people who have put themselves intentionally in the public arena should expect it. I also find it acceptable for members of a particular group to satirize themselves. I find it to be a fairly bad idea for members of one group comprised mainly of private individuals, to satirize or insult another group comprised mainly of private individuals in stereotypical fashion.

I found this sketch one of the funniest I've ever seen.

WARNING! Extreme racist speech! Please consider the context carefully!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i9iTYe6tEk[/youtube]

How funny would this video be if it were done by David Duke in black face? (intentionally extreme example, but you get the point)

Many of the same people in the Autistic community who call NT's stupid, are also the same individuals who rant about Autistic stereotypes. Isn't that just a little hypocritical?